Editorial: General Education in a Context of Mass Higher Education in the East and West

Education [obrazovanie] is a complex and many-sided concept. It is based on the objective requirements of social development. Education is viewed from a different perspective in pedagogical theory and in everyday practice. When we speak of various levels of education, we use such terms as primary, secondary, and higher education. When we discuss the content and character of education, we refer to general, polytechnical and vocational education. But when we clarify the specialization of education, we introduce such concepts as technical, agricultural, medical, pedagogical [teacher training] education, etc. In some cases, these concepts differ substantially while in others they coincide to a certain degree. All youth receive an eight-year general education in the general education polytechnical labor school. Secondary education may be completed in the upper grades of the [ten-year] general education school. Secondary education may also be pursued in vocational-technical schools and secondary specialized educational institutions, which give pupils a general education and, at the same time, enable them to master a given specialty. Higher specialized education based on general secondary education is offered in higher educational institutions. The term vocational education is used at present primarily to describe education offered by vocational-technical schools.

The Liberal Arts Endeavor: Enacting Values in General Education Reform

The article on the study of college students' sports general course teaching actual effect in the process, the advanced idea of the specialization of physical education reform at home and abroad, the corresponding reference and efficient new as a specific research object, mainly in the form of class experimental teaching and questionnaire survey, summed up the final conclusion, namely the sports teaching in colleges and universities need to combine with specialized elements. The general sports courses mainly is the development direction of the teaching content more rich diversity, and the teaching method and means more human, have fun, to sports performance evaluation method is more scientific. Special teaching can make the teaching content of the professional degree and the depth of the study are improved effectively, and special sports general class practice content not only can better improve the body quality of contemporary college students themselves, with its novel selectivity of diverse teaching methods, and can effectively improve the students' interests in learning. At the same time, fitness testing could also help students to establish their individual sports quality files, and then drive to achieve the goal of health education of college students. The research background of sports general specialized teaching In the process of rapid social and economic development in our country, but people's own physical quality drops, and in colleges and universities, the sub-health population scale expanding gradually. It can be found in the physical test results of recent years, juvenile physical decline year by year, and after the youth to enter colleges and universities, the problem is widespread in the colleges and universities. With the expansion of the scale of higher education, students sports foundation polarized increasingly serious, the differences between individual is different, this also gradually become the universities sports teaching focus on the problem. At present, most of the colleges and universities sports teaching time is two years, and the main teaching content is badminton, basketball, volleyball and so on regular exercise. Sports theoretical teaching content is health care and sports exercise method and its function and value, etc. The physical education curriculum Settings have been unable to meet the requirements of the present personnel training, and teaching form is single and boring, and relatively stringent, obsolete teaching content and also too much emphasis on teachers' leading role, make the students principal role cannot be get play, eventually led to the decrease of the student's study enthusiasm, it is difficult to achieve the goal of the new personnel training . To cultivate professional talent, we must rely on the basis of sports teaching, the university's basic course is the general sports courses. However, in recent years, colleges and universities sports general lessons for pay more attention to teaching, and then played down the professional, for engineering college students pay more attention to the cultivation of the humanities, and the concept of general education and the combination of school curriculum and teaching reform, through sports, general education of university undergraduate course education to carry on the design. Although the general course and specialized recess contradiction, but the reform of the specialization of the male body is mainly to improve the students' physique as the foundation, the ultimate goal is to strengthen students' basic quality by using the method of specialization, make its interest in physical exercise, and through the specialized teaching methods to achieve the goal of improving students'. And one year in the university sports general course teaching is to better International Conference on Management Science, Education Technology, Arts, Social Science and Economics (MSETASSE 2015) © 2015. The authors Published by Atlantis Press 443 implement the specialized teaching. We have certain challenging due to the reform of the public sports professional, so, need more from the reality of school, in the actual teaching of sports actively looking for college sports organic combination between general education and specialized teaching pattern. The research object and methods The research object Research object selection college freshman, and carries on the general sports courses teaching and special course experience. The research methods Questionnaire survey Undergraduates as a key research object, on the special experience of teaching content and general course teaching. Undergraduate new students of the first semester will take the form of sports general course teaching, and for the teaching contents, means and the effect of the classroom, etc. to design the content of the questionnaire. This questionnaire survey is based on random sampling survey method, selecting 1000 undergraduates, and in the process of sampling, completely according to the probability sampling method, including men and women in the selected samples, due to the content of the investigation is the general, therefore, need not consider gender distinction. Classroom experiment method Implemented in the process of classroom teaching and students' interaction, and we will advise to students in the process of learning experience and opinions for consultation. In addition, outside the classroom, can let the students fill in the questionnaire, and write the related study summary report, through different ways to experiment on the effects of physical education teaching and improve . The analysis of the results of the study Sports general course satisfaction survey analysis Because of undergraduate sports general class content is extensive, so choose ten aspects of survey content, to study college students for the general sports courses evaluation and understanding. Rating is divided into five categories, namely, satisfied, satisfied, general, not satisfied with, and are not satisfied, while scores as 5 points, 4 points, three points, 2 points, 1 point. The average scores of all subjects in a project called satisfaction, so the three points belongs to the neutral evaluation, and do not meet the three part is defined as a negative attitude, above three points is defined as a positive attitude, as a result, the higher the score, the higher the degree of satisfaction. In the actual survey results, it can be summarized in the following two points: first, from the overall perspective, the students of physical education curriculum setting is approved, and from ten aspects of the content of the investigation results, only one evaluation hasn't been attained three points. Second, analyze the satisfaction of the rankings can be found, ranking in the front is a directional cross-country and swimming teaching, and the last is the sports teaching theory, the main reason is the single theory class teaching content boring, and the experience of specialized course arrangement is also very single, unable to meet the demand of students' interest in their own. The morning exercises arrangement is satisfaction ranked the second project, this morning exercises exercise in the form of always is not accepted by students. The analysis of the university freshmen teaching experiment result Based on the actual investigation and study, it found that the highest satisfaction is sports teaching content and density. In the actual classroom teaching, the sports classroom teaching in the 90th minute, the density of its movement is only 20 minutes of running, and the rest of the time is for sports theory of knowledge interpretation and analysis. For sports general class of classroom teaching methods, students are not approved, so the satisfaction in the ranking. In the actual classroom teaching of sports, the general teaching of directional cross-country, PE teachers by the

This manuscript examines the status of L2 teacher education research over the past 15 years from three perspectives. First, it examines the status of L2 teacher education research vis-à-vis general teacher education. Second, a common stereotype which considers teacher education as a Western phenomenon is challenged. Third, it investigates the extent to which different levels of education have benefited from relevant research. Data obtained from 176 research articles published from 2003 to 2018, showed that teacher education research is expectedly more nested within general education. Nevertheless, it was revealed that whereas general teacher education is more promulgated in Western contexts, L2 teacher education is more based in Asia-pacific contexts. Finally, higher education appears to be left out in both L2 and general teacher education research, as most studies focused on K-12. The results are believed to provide important implications for L2 teacher education researchers and practitioners.

Reviewed by: Assessing General Education Programs Susan L. Aloi (bio) M. J. Allen . (2006). Assessing General Education Programs. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Co.269 pages. ISBN: 1-882982-95-9. $40.00. As evidenced most recently by the flurry of draft reports from the Spellings Commission, institutions of higher education are being pressured to become more accountable for the outcomes of their graduates. Accrediting bodies, legislatures, parents, funders, and others have long been concerned about whether college students acquire the knowledge and skills to be successful in the workplace and to become effective participants in our democratic society. However, these stakeholders are now increasingly demanding concrete evidence of the value of higher education's contributions to students and the general public. In her latest publication, Assessing General Education Programs, Mary Allen describes general education as the core of the undergraduate curriculum for all students, regardless of their major. This component is designed to ensure the development of the essential learning abilities and competencies in demand by employers, such as oral and written communication, critical thinking, information literacy, and quantitative skills. Not surprisingly, the heightened calls for accountability in higher education seem to focus on these general education outcomes. Thankfully, Allen comes to the rescue of those responsible for designing and implementing plans to assess general education programs. Allen's book delivers useful advice for practitioners, sharing models of general education programs and appropriate assessment techniques across a wide array of institutional types. As she states in the preface, her purpose in writing this book was to provide "a compact, practical guide for busy professionals who want to assess their general education program in meaningful, manageable, and sustainable ways" (iv). My review of her resulting publication reveals that she succeeded very well in accomplishing her purpose. [End Page 169] Chapter 1 provides a broad overview of general education principles and assessment basics, in brief. The second chapter focuses on the mission, goals, and outcomes associated with general education programs, including examples of these outcomes from a variety of institutions with differing missions. The next few chapters deal with the nuts and bolts of developing and implementing an assessment plan for general education. These chapters include advice and examples related to aligning curriculum with general education outcomes, selecting assessment methods, and assigning responsibilities. The closing chapter brings together suggestions for reporting assessment results, managing the assessment committee, and sustaining assessment efforts across campus. So, do we really need another book on how to do assessment in higher education? Although some experts recommend integrating general education outcomes and their assessment into the majors (Banta & Associates, 2002; Walvoord & Anderson, 1998), many institutions still support a separate general education program. Allen's book focuses specifically on assessing general education, so that faculty and administration are not forced to guess at how to apply assessment techniques to general education outcomes. And by providing a variety of assessment examples from 43 institutions of higher education throughout the book, Allen moves the discussion of general education assessment from theory to practice. This practitioner focus is the core of Allen's unique contribution to the assessment of general education. Assessing general education outcomes is a challenging assignment because of the nature and purpose of the program. General education curriculum is the responsibility of all faculty, yet no one individual or group is held accountable for program results (Aloi, Gardner, & Lusher, 2003). However, as faculty at institutions of higher education continue to discuss and experiment with techniques to meet the call for accountability of general education outcomes, Assessing General Education Programs will serve as a valuable resource. [End Page 170] Susan L. Aloi Susan L. Aloi is an assistant professor and the director of the master's in education program at West Virginia Wesleyan College in Buckhannon. Her teaching and research interests include assessment, strategic planning, and community-based learning (aloi_s@wvwc.edu). References Aloi, S. L., Gardner, W. S., & Lusher, A. L. (2003). A framework for assessing general education outcomes. Journal of General Education, 52(4), 237-252. Google Scholar Banta, T. W., & Associates. (2002). Building a scholarship of assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar Walvoord, B. E., & Anderson, V. J. (1998). Effective grading: A tool for learning...

Curricular Commons

General education is an important part of university education aiming at cultivating students’ comprehensive quality and sense of responsibility. As professional sports colleges and universities, higher sports colleges implement the curriculum reform of general education relatively late, and there is a problem of curriculum system construction in the process of implementing general education. The purpose of this paper is to research and discuss the application of general education management in higher education based on fuzzy cluster analysis in the Internet environment. This paper first discusses the teaching mode in the Internet environment and then analyzes the application of fuzzy cluster analysis in general education. Through fuzzy cluster analysis, the students’ understanding of general education before and after learning general education courses is compared, which paves the way for the promotion of general education in colleges and universities. Finally, this paper takes the general education curriculum system of higher physical education colleges as the research object and conducts fuzzy cluster analysis on it. The experimental results show that before studying general courses, 66.7% of the students hope to improve their language communication and expression skills, and 52.8% and 46% of the students hope to improve their practical ability and logical thinking ability. After receiving general education, only 23.5% of students have improved logical thinking ability, and only 13.7% of students have improved language communication and expression skills. The results show that general education does not meet the expectations of students, general education in higher physical education colleges is not effective, and the realization of general education needs to be further improved. To this end, schools can purchase network information resources, cooperate with well-known universities at home and abroad, develop general education courses with a global perspective, train students’ spirit of independent thinking, and master correct thinking methods.

During my research into the mathematics curriculum of Flanders secondary education (age 12-18), I first discovered that there is small scope for an explicit philosophy of mathematics. Nevertheless, there are some initial concepts formulated in the general objectives which tend to a more absolutist view of mathematics. In formulating the new curriculum, however, there was some attention paid to the inclusion of humanistic values. The mainstream of the implicit philosophy of mathematics is still a rather absolutist one, viewing mathematical truth∈dex as absolute and certain, connected with some humanistic values. Second, I discovered a large gap between general and vocational education. On the one hand, we can say that mathematics in vocational education is completely embedded in a modular system, and that attention is paid to core skills. On the other hand, we must say that pupils are prepared for specific occupations, for personal and social functioning, and to survive in our society. Access to higher education is theoretically possible, but unlikely for the majority. Mathematics in general education is a separate and different course. General education provides a strong base for higher education. In this paper, I shall briefly present some findings of the case study in which I want to make the connection with the theoretical framework of Alan J. Bishop.Bishop believes in a difference between the small m and the large M of mathematics, where the small m stands for a set of mathematical basic competence (such as counting, designing, explaining, locating, measuring, and playing) and the large M stands for mathematics, as in the Western scientific discipline. I shall argue that pupils in vocational mathematics are taught the small m and pupils in general education are taught the large M. The more general the education is, the larger the M is, which gains higher respect in society. In line with this M-m distinction, I shall elaborate on the connection which exists between the view on mathematics education and the didactics used in classroom. International comparative research on the results of mathematics educations shows us—in the case of Flanders—the best results nearly all over the world. I shall, however, criticize the way in which mathematics in schools chooses between the smart and the not so smart and what the role of ethnomathematics should be in Western school curricula to overcome this social stratification. Finally, I want to go on to explore two central hidden values in mathematics education to demystify the untouchable and frightening status of mathematics.

Guest Editor’s Note Christa Olson (bio) This special issue of jge: The Journal of General Education focuses on international learning outcomes assessment. Why an issue on assessing international learning at this crossroads? How is such an issue relevant for those readers who are focused on general education? Assessment and accountability are two of the most prominent higher education issues of our times. In the wake of government and business calls for additional transparency and accountability, recent higher education associations have featured these issues during recent conventions (the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges summer meeting, 2008; the Association of American Colleges and Universities annual meeting, January 2009; the American Council on Education (ace ) annual meeting, February 2009). In just the past few months, U.S. higher education media—notably, the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed —have reported on prominent initiatives and new entities such as the Voluntary System of Accountability, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, and the Alliance for New Leadership for Student Learning and Accountability. Our higher education counterparts overseas, most notably those involved in the European Bologna process, are ratcheting up their own conversations about quality assurance— the European variation on the assessment and accountability movement rapidly gaining standing around the world. These cries for accountability—nationally and internationally—are the backdrop for any discussion about learning outcomes and assessment and perhaps in themselves serve as a sufficient rationale for an issue focused on the assessment of international learning. However, related (and arguably deeper and more powerful) justifications for engaging in the assessment of international learning exist. These rationales reflect the shift away from a teaching-centered paradigm and toward the learning-centered model that is under way both in the United States and elsewhere. The purpose for assessment within such a frame of reference becomes first [End Page vii] and foremost about how the process of assessment can promote enhanced student reflection about his or her learning. Asking students to take a second intentional look at their work and providing evidence of specific learning can further enhance their growth and development as reflective learners. To engage in such a practice of assessment, for such a purpose, is to engage in meaningful assessment. Those involved in providing international learning opportunities to students, faculty, and staff have long been struggling with the challenge of capturing the elusive, complex, and developmental nature of international learning. This challenge approximates closely the challenge of those involved in capturing the complex developmental nature of the general liberal arts education. Many higher educators have gone so far as to say that a quality general liberal arts education necessarily includes global learning. Yet defining what “it” is has been an enigma, in part, because the world is not static; consequently, the requisite learning is necessarily evolving in nature. What may be an unknown language or area of the world to virtually all of U.S. higher education today may become a critical language or area of the world tomorrow, for example. Many a practitioner will bemoan the fact that several of the highly needed attitudes and skills required for effective interaction with others are not easily put into concrete language. Yet it is widely understood by those working in the field that these intangible qualities are often the defining factor between a successful or failed communication, negotiation, or nation-state relationship. And such qualities are not easily acquired through any one international learning opportunity—too often the default on many U.S. campuses. A one- or two-semester language requirement rarely results in producing a proficient second-language speaker. And a one-semester study-abroad experience rarely produces sophisticated intercultural negotiators. Rather, the high-level achievement of international learning— however elusive it may be to define—requires a combination of multiple learning opportunities offered throughout a student’s academic experience. This is one of the principles that the ace /Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (fipse ) Lessons Learned in Assessing International Learning project documented in this issue was striving to address. From this principle springs a driving question. How can higher education institutions most effectively provide an appropriate combination of international learning experiences to ensure...

Objectives This article explores a German university case that integrates the principles and values of sustainable development principles into all aspects of the German higher education system. The study sets out to provide practical implications for the development strategies from a sustainable development perspective to support general education in South Korea. Methods This paper gives an overview of the higher education system for implementation while the significance of this study lie in the practice and possibilities of general education. Theses are examined to probe how Germany adapts and applies a whole-institution approach to embed the value of sustainable development. A German university case of adapting the whole-institutional approach towards sustainability is then provided. Priority action areas are reviewed for the analysis of sustainable development in action through the approach to Education for Sustainable Development in the illustrative case. Results The characteristics of the German higher education system that realizes the value of sustainable development are as follows. A concept of sustainable development builds upon the global framework for implementation of sustainable development such as the Global Action Programme on Education for Sustainable Development(ESD): Towards achieving the Sustainable Developing Goals(SDG). A joint research project funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research(BMBF) is to establish guidelines for higher education for sustainable development. Based on the guideline each university develops a common concept of sustainability and transformative action program that promote the whole-institution approach. Conclusions Main findings of this research provide insights for general higher education in South Korea. This approach will prove useful in expanding our understanding of how apply to the whole-institution approach to general education in South Korea.

Reviewed by: Assessing Student Learning in General Education: Good Practice Case Studies Steven E. Gump (bio) M. J. Bresciani (Ed.). (2007). Assessing Student Learning in General Education: Good Practice Case Studies. Bolton, Mass.: Anker. xxiii + 251 pages. ISBN: 978-1-933371-20-7. $40.00 hardcover. In a review of Mary Allen’s Assessing General Education Programs (2006), Susan Aloi questioned whether “we really need another book on how to do assessment in higher education” (2007, p. 170). Marilee Bresciani has indeed compiled another such book; but her offering, like Allen’s, is valuable due to its specific, practitioner focus on general education programs. Assessing Student Learning in General Education: Good Practice Case Studies presents a collection of case studies that are intended to help faculty and administrators understand good practice in the assessment of student learning as it relates to general education. The volume is a useful resource for how to design and implement outcomes-based assessment “to identify what students are learning” from today’s “general education efforts” (1). At the same time, to use the words of contributor Nancy Womack of Isothermal Community College (Spindale, North Carolina), the book reminds readers that the “purposes for all assessment practices. . . [should be] to improve instruction and to promote learning” (108). Bresciani, an associate professor of postsecondary education at San Diego State University who was formerly both assistant vice president for institutional [End Page 123] assessment at Texas A&M University and director of assessment at North Carolina State University, has assembled thirteen descriptive and self-reflective studies of general education assessment—collectively, the work of twenty-two contributors—from a diverse array of higher education settings in the United States. Her attention to the “vertical” nature of higher education (to borrow a concept from John Thelin [2004, p. xx]) is commendable: Case studies reflect the assessment of general education at community colleges, four-year liberal arts colleges, comprehensive public universities, doctoral/research-extensive institutions, and even a large multi-institution system (the State University of New York). This diversity of representation adds immeasurably to the usefulness of the volume, since readers can, at the very least, identify with and learn from processes and experiences at institutions similar to their own. Additionally, students of higher education or assessment can learn, firsthand, how analogous issues are navigated at institutions within the various strata of the postsecondary hierarchy. Indeed, certain themes resonate across all of the case studies—themes that speak to the nature and roles of general education, the purposes and implementation of assessment, and the enactment of institutional change. Bresciani outlines her purpose and methodology in the preface, explaining how the case study institutions were selected and describing the general outline that all invited institutions were asked to follow in presenting their case studies. In the introductory chapter, Bresciani presents nine challenges to assessing student learning in general education. With each challenge, she provides a number of questions that could stimulate conversation on fundamental issues related to the evaluation of general education. As did Allen (2006), Bresciani contextualizes her study of general education assessment by exploring the existential questions of general education: its debatable goals, expectations, ownership, and relation to both disciplinary knowledge and the co-curricular world. She reminds readers, also, of the importance of institutional culture, mission, and context in shaping the purpose of general education. In short, the clear message is that educators need to know what they want students to learn—and how they plan to go about delivering opportunities to promote such learning—before assessment plans can be designed or implemented. The thirteen chapters at the heart of the volume present the thirteen brief case studies (averaging sixteen pages apiece), arranged not quite alphabetically by institutional name. Each contributed case study begins with a description of the institution, an overview of the institutional culture, and an overview of the general education program. Next, the process for assessing the general education program is described, with at least one contextualized example, including desired outcomes, evaluation methods, criteria, observations, and decisions based on the findings. Case studies conclude with recommendations for implementing [End Page 124] the assessment process and a discussion of at least one challenge encountered and...

This article aims to reflect on the state of general education in Korean universities in the 1980s, focusing on the assessment of general education conducted by the Korean Council for University Education in 1984 and 1986 and the results of a study to improve the organization and operation of general education curricula in 1988. In the early 1980s, Korean universities began to pay attention to issues surrounding general education as a starting point for solving long-standing problems in higher education and as a prelude to exploring a new future. Studies by Seoul National University, Yonsei University, and Hanyang University on how to improve general education are representative examples. Meanwhile, in 1984, the Korean Council for University Education conducted an assessment of the general education and the education of national ethics and ideological criticism as part of the assessment of each academic area, and in 1986, it conducted an assessment of the national courses and college courses along with the assessment of the general education as a whole. The two assessments summarized the state of general education in 1980s as follows. First, general education had two goals: the perfection of personality and basic education for majors, with more weight given to the latter than the former. Second, with the introduction of the pilot system, institutions dedicated to general education were abolished, and general education became the responsibility of the office of academic affairs or individual departments. Third, the general education curriculum consisted of two-thirds of compulsory courses such as national courses and college courses, and the remaining one-third was dominated by basic courses for majors. Fourth, as full-time professors and senior professors avoided teaching general education courses, part-time lecturers with short teaching experience were responsible for nearly half of general education. Fifth, general education courses had an average class size of more than 100 students, and were dominated by one-sided lectures by professors who focused on delivering fragmented knowledge. Sixth, while individual courses had their own problems, they were either organized by the departments involved or by the office of academic affairs, so there was no single entity dedicated to curriculum or course development. A policy study was conducted to improve this situation, and 14 proposals were made in six areas, including the essential status of general education, the goals of general education, the selection of contents of general education, the type and organization of general education courses, the number of general education courses, and the management system of general education courses, but it took time to be implemented. The abolition of national courses in 1989 paved the way for new changes, but as basic courses for majors took their place, general education went through another period of struggle.

Many factors are driving colleges and universities to devote at tention to assessing student learning outcomes. These factors in clude expectations of regional and specialized accrediting asso ciations; public demands for information about what is happen ing to students; governmental reporting and accountability require ments; and institutions' own recognition that, to operate with in tegrity and continuously improve programs and services, they need to know what and how much students are learning. A number of things make assessing general education learning outcomes one of the most challenging assessment areas in higher education. First, in subjects such as composition and mathemat ics, there are definable skill levels, which are relatively easier to articulate and measure than in other general education subjects, especially the social sciences and humanities. Second, student at tendance patterns at many institutions, especially those where large numbers of students transfer general education coursework taken elsewhere or depart the institution before completing their gen eral education component, make it difficult to determine what a particular school has contributed to a student's general education experience or even when the student is done at that institution. Third, faculty from many different disciplines may teach key gen eral education skills, but not assess or even have a similar under standing of what a skill entails across other disciplines. For ex ample, critical thinking is often taught by philosophers, psycholo gists, and educators, who may have quite different understand ings of critical thinking and use different assessment approaches.

The scope and function of general education is perhaps one of the most volatile issues in higher education (Shires, 1996). Many academic institutions are in the process of reassessing and redefining the standards that constitute core academic or general education curricula (Goldstein, 2001; Shires, 1996). Since communication courses are often offered as a part of general education, issues related to accountability, assessment, and change in general education should be a concern of communication departments that contribute to general education programs. Arguing that communication skills are foundational to students' fundamental academic skills and critical to students' success in college and beyond, this essay addresses the question: “What is the role of a communication curriculum in general education?” The current essay demonstrates how a systematic assessment plan was utilized to refine a curriculum and to provide evidence and fortify arguments for the role of communication in general education. Finally, issues and recommendations for assessment and curriculum development in general education are addressed.

Issues in society such as immigration and racial inequality threaten to derail classroom discussions. Likewise, issues in higher education such as general education (GE) reform threaten to obstruct faculty committee discussions. We want students to engage in classroom discussions through a comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, and events before accepting or formulating opinions or conclusions. How can we expect this of students if we cannot expect this of ourselves? Shenandoah University (SU) adapted California State University-Chico's Town Hall Public Sphere Pedagogy model to incorporate role play and deliberative dialogue into its GE reform discussions and then adapted the model further to become a signature program in its revised GE curriculum. SU Town Hall classes require students to explore a social issue from the lens of their GE class and share that informed perspective with peers, faculty, and community consultants at a convening Town Hall event. While GE reform and issues such as immigration seemingly have little in common, discussions of both require participants to transcend individual biases, to find commonalties, and, one hopes, to discover new possibilities or solutions. This article describes how SU embedded civic engagement into GE curriculum after modeling the process in GE reform discussions.